JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.12.2003 by which compulsory retirement has been given to the petitioner. The appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 28.8.2004.

2. The facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that he was posted as Constable at Police Station Sadar, Tonk and on 28.12.2001 he remained absent from duty. On 18.1.2002 he along with Four other persons abducted one Gopal son of Bajranga and assaulted him and took his signatures on a stamp paper. For the aforesaid act, Crime No. 14/2002 was registered against him with Police Station Todaraisingh (Tonk) for the offences under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323 and 120-B IPC, and the petitioner was arrested on 15.3.2002. A charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “CCA Rules”) with the additional charge that such act of the petitioner has spoiled the image of Police in the esteem of public.

3. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted and statements of the following witnesses were recorded :-

(i) Ram Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Todaraisingh, District Tonk

(ii) Ratan Lal, Constable

(iii) Badri Lal, Constable

(iv) Mukesh Choudhary

(v) Sitaram

(vi) Chauthmal

(vii) Shankarlal

(viii) Gopal Lal (complainant in FIR)

and thirteen documents were exhibited and the petitioner cross-examined all these witnesses. In defence, statements of DW-1 Kumari Sarita were recorded. After holding detailed enquiry, the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and the punishment order was passed against the petitioner by compulsorily retiring him from service vide impugned order dated 11.12.2003. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Appellate Authority by way of filing appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules and the same was also rejected.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in departmental chargesheet and in the criminal case were same and identical, and in the criminal case petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges under Sections 365, 342, 327, 323, 324 and 120-B IPC by the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Tonk in Sessions Case No. 63/2005 vide judgment dated 24.10.2005. Counsel submits that the witness Gopal Lal was examined in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal trial. The charges, both in departmental enquiry and in the trial, were substantially same. Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial. The finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry on the same charges is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 SCC 679, G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 and a judgment of this court in the case of Phool Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 394.

5.1. Lastly, the counsel submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment of “honorable acquittal” and he has been “fully exonerated” in the criminal trial, hence the impugned orders are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police (2015) 2 SCC 365. No other point has been raised by the counsel for petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that charges against the petitioner in the criminal trial were not exactly the same as they were in the departmental enquiry. Counsel submitted that in the departmental enquiry, total eight witnesses were examined and after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner, t